Can an atheist have morals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wilberhum
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 82
  • Views Views 11K
Yes, I believe that an atheist can have morals. Humanity has it's own level/code of morals and self-decipline. God has given everyone a basic human instinct and a conscience to differentiate between right and wrong. I believe it is the play of this instinct and conscience that make even atheists decent human beings. Whether they believe this to be from God or not is an entirely different matter.
 
QuranStudy said:
What evidence can you provide that Atheism and morality go together?
Click to expand...

The evidence? What about those many atheists that have morals?

Besides, I would say the core components of morals are compassion and empathy. Why would someone who believes in a deity have any more of that than someone who doesn't?
 
Muslimah_Sis said:
Yes, I believe that an atheist can have morals. Humanity has it's own level/code of morals and self-decipline. God has given everyone a basic human instinct and a conscience to differentiate between right and wrong. I believe it is the play of this instinct and conscience that make even atheists decent human beings. Whether they believe this to be from God or not is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...
i agree. i think we are born with an innate knowledge of right and wrong - that it is part of our natural sense of survival and preservation, no matter what we believe or don't believe.
i was raised in no religion and i don't think i was any more immoral than anybody else.
 
Salaam,

Of course all of mankind are born perfect,to know what is right from wrong.

But it is our own choices that make us what WE ARE.

As the Prophet has said,,A MESSENGER WAS SENT TO ALL RACES.

To give the message,but in time it was perverted and corrupted for a paltry price to meet man needs and lusT.

So yes all of mankind have morals,but to what degree of morality is the question.
thus why Allah sent messenger to all RACES..so that each will kow the true depth of morality and what is wrong.

From knowing morality then we cna know what is immoral and thus laws are made.
 
Isn't saying that an atheist can not have morals, similar to saying that a man who does not believe in dentists can't have a tooth ache?

I can not see any reason to doubt that an atheist can have moral values. I think we disagree on the source and reason.
 
QuranStudy said:
What atheists? The atheists I know are fornicators and some are sodomizers (gay).
Click to expand...

You make it sound like a bad thing :p.

Seriously, like I said. Sexuality seems to be the main issue seperating secular morals from religious morals.
 
I think the basic problem with this tread lies here.
1. On one hand you have morality which refers to a universal code of conduct.
2. On the other hand you have morality which refers to a code of conduct which humans think is moral.
What's the difrence between the two? Well for the saek of making my explenation clearly, lets asume all humans can reach consensus on what's moral and what's not. Even then, even if we all agree, that still doesn't necesairly make our humane vision of moral actions the same as the universal set of codes! Of course an atheist can question wheter there exists such a thing. And thats where it gets tricky. We muslims think there's a difrence between what some poeple percieve as moral and that which is actually moral. We believe that something can be percieved as right by us, while it is wrong and vise verca, because we do not have suficient insight to fully understand the consequences of our actions, at least not to the same extend as our creator (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) has that insight. Therefor we believe that the morality that comes from our logic, is inferior to the devine morality revealed to us by the prophets (peace be upon them). After all, when you use a complex machine, do yo not read the manual from the manufacturer? Likewise we use the revelations of the prophets (peace be upon them) to better understand which code of conduct is more desirable or "moral".

As an example of how our logic is incuficient to derive a universal morality from: consider a person who -based on his extreme communistic vieuws- claims that theft is not immoral, since all matter and objects belongs to the people, and nobody can claim any material object as his property.
This might eb a lil' bit exagerated, but it shows how our morality is easely influenced by our worldview, and believes.

Likewise, and atheist might have his personal opinion on what is moral and what is immoral. Yet I am convinced that he will logical flaws in his opinion; since no person is capable enough to fully understand the depths and consequences of a specific action or conduct. I've already explained in a difrent thread how generally speaking the moralilty of an atheist is "lower" (in the strict meaning of the word) then the morality of a muslim, since the atheistic morality alows more and the muslim orality is stricter in conduct (again, in general, not all atheist think alike). Wheter or not an atheist agrees that this strictness is mandatory for a "desirable" morality, he would have to agree that a lesser strict morality is inferior to the more strict morality.
 
KAding said:
You make it sound like a bad thing :p.

Seriously, like I said. Sexuality seems to be the main issue seperating secular morals from religious morals.
Click to expand...


Salaam,

May i ask,to what extent of fornication and altenative lifestyle do you support?

Do you also support incest between father and daughter or father and son?
Or mother and daughter ....or any close relation?

What is your boundary?
Or dont you have any?
 
:sl:

the problem ppl is now having is...what is really moral values? what is the appropriate conduct?

if you ask the people...you can have so many answers...

and do you think the majority sayings are the correct ones?

:w:
 
Zulkiflim said:
Salaam,

May i ask,to what extent of fornication and altenative lifestyle do you support?

Do you also support incest between father and daughter or father and son?
Or mother and daughter ....or any close relation?

What is your boundary?
Or dont you have any?
Click to expand...

Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.

Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong.
Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.
 
Last edited:
KAding said:
Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting difrence, but it begs the question, what motivation does an atheist have to follow this morality? Lets assume for a second nobody ever will get hurt from it (she won't find out) is it still a repulsive thing to do? you see, just because nobody has been wronged by it, doesn't make it ok. wheter or not the law needs to step in is a whole difrent discussion. We would have to measure up benefits of rule versus limitation of freedom. In Islam usually the wellbeing of the peopel and teh community is more important than individual freedom. To me that seems to make sense, but in the west peopel usually think freedom is more important, which quite frankly I find selfish.


KAding said:
Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.
Click to expand...
Well you need to see the whole picture, look at a society where fornication is considered no problem and look at a society where it isn't. I think you'll find a lot less heartbreak, and a lot less emotional distress, a lot less broken up familys in the on where it's not alowed. Also you need to consider that marriage will be an entirely difrent proces, that wife-husband relationship will have a totally difrent character. In teh end you need to look at the whole puzzle (=society, with all sorts of rules and conduct), rather then taking a single piece of "our" puzzle and trying to fit it in "your" puzzle. No you can argue that cost of this rule, the limitation it sets on freedom is not worth the welbeing it offers the community. However I think it's clear that having this rule offers a benefith to society, and thus can be considered "more moral" then not having this rule.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong. Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.
Click to expand...

Well you need to think bigger. The reason something is considered immoral is not always only because of teh direct effect an act has on the participants of that act. Those participants are also a part of a community, and their private acts will in the long term affect the community. The reason sodomosation isn't allowed isn't revealed to us, it's simply said that it is not alowed. However if we look at it we find that it is undesirable. First of al if large numbers of society would be gay we'd have a problem with reproducing and that society would have problems with senior citicens and so on, but that's just a minor thing. Let's for a second forget the AIDS problem in Africa, since it's to wide spread there to make conclusions about it. But if you'll look in Western countries, America and Europe. You'll find that 90% of AIdspatient are homosexual or bisexual. During anal sex, the chance of passing on this disease (as well as other diseases that pass trough bloodcontact) is a lot higher, since there's a much higher chance of internal bleedings! You need blood to pass Aids, the reason heterosexuals can pass aids to is because sometimes in the womb or in the sperm are small particles of blood. When sodomising the chance of bloodcontact is so much higher, and statistic back that up, so it's only natural for Allah (s.w.t.) to forbid this act, afterall that is not why he designed us those shapes.
 
KAding said:
Thats kind of a silly question, of course I have boundaries. First let me note that there must be a difference between morals and law. While I find it morally repulsive for a man to cheat on his wife, I do not believe in outlawing it. We are dealing with two consenting adults after all.

Where is my moral boundary then on 'fornication'? If it is isn't between two loving and consenting adults it is wrong. Incest between two adults would also be wrong because of polution of the gene pool. I do not believe however that it is necesarrily wrong to have sex without being married.

Edit: Oh, and I do not think a homosexual relationship is necessarilly morally wrong.
Edit 2: I'm sure you'll complete disagree with this. The issue for me is that I am having a hard time codemning things as morally wrong when nobody is being hurt and everyone consented in somekind of activity.
Click to expand...


Salaam,

Alhamdulilah,i am happy that you do have some boundaries..


Inshallah,maybe from there the boudaries towards decency will spread.

as i said before,moral is imbued in everone.,,,but we break it to our own lusts and need...

For me as a muslim,i find the notion of alternative relationship is not just morally wrong by divinely condemned.


I am very sure in this case most chrisitan would agree that marriage is between a man and a woman..
 
I bellieve where the confusion comes from is how people view the word morals.

It seems that people are not seeing the difference between morals and a universaly accepted code of Morals.

Most Religions do have a well written code, that is understood by the believers of the religion and is taught as such. To many believers that is what is seen as morals

For an atheist the code will be their own self values plus the written civil and criminal laws of where they live.

In either case the true test will be in how each individual applies the code.

A person can profess to believe in God(swt) yet not live up to his own written codes thereby it is possible for a person who believes in God(swt) to live an immoral life.

Conversly an Athiest can live within the laws of the land and his inner values and live a very moral life.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top